If it wasn't for religion

[GrandizerII]

How does appealing to a god bolster anyone's moralizing exactly? Saying that killing is wrong because God ... does not make sense to me.

I said eternal truths, telling me that killing is wrong because it’s violate some profound and eternal law, is  a bit more persuasive
than telling me killing is wrong because society thinks so.

What profound and eternal law exactly? If it has nothing to do with God, then what advantage do theists have over atheists when it comes to moralizing?

By the way, not all atheists say killing is wrong because that's what society says.

[The Grand Nudger]

How does appealing to a god bolster anyone's moralizing exactly? Saying that killing is wrong because God ... does not make sense to me.

I said eternal truths, telling me that killing is wrong because it’s violate some profound and eternal law, is  a bit more persuasive
than telling me killing is wrong because society thinks so.

Perhaps that's why society thinks so?  I mean, IDK if it's really all that profound or eternal..but it seems like skullfucking people is a bad thing, and so it doesn't surprise anyone to find that there are skullfucking prohibitions in every society.  

And their version of reality lacks any moral aims and purposes, doesn’t convince a man to take the hand off of his brother neck, or laddle benediction on the heads of strangers rather than curses.

All their version of reality tells us is all is permissible.

Imagine that this were true, and then tell me how to distinguish between the failures of that camp and any other, say the religious camps..with their endless fraternal war?

It would be unfortunate if mere reality were insufficient as a moral basis, but if that were so.... then that would be so. It wouldn't certify the truth of a superstitious morality. You're only telling us that if your superstitions turned out to be false, which they certainly are, then you couldn't be compelled to decency. Where others see a world of right and wrong, you see only a free-for-all.

Generally, I doubt that this is true of anyone. I'm inclined to believe that you and others who say similar things are mistaken about yourselves in this regard.....bluntly, I see you pointing to moral facts as though they established the supernatural. This suggests that you at least see the moral dimensions of mere reality.

OFC, I can only object with so much force, if you and they actually are some sort of sociopath...and you would endlessly reassert the above..well, then so be it? I hope you remain superstitious?

[Acrobat]

I said eternal truths, telling me that killing is wrong because it’s violate some profound and eternal law, is  a bit more persuasive
than telling me killing is wrong because society thinks so.

Perhaps that's why society thinks so?  I mean, IDK if it's really all that profound or eternal..but it seems like skullfucking people is a bad thing, and so it doesn't surprise anyone to find that there are skullfucking prohibitions in every society.  

And their version of reality lacks any moral aims and purposes, doesn’t convince a man to take the hand off of his brother neck, or laddle benediction on the heads of strangers rather than curses.

All their version of reality tells us is all is permissible.

Imagine that this were true, and then tell me how to distinguish between the failures of that camp and any other, say the religious camps..with their endless fraternal war?

It would be unfortunate if mere reality were insufficient as a moral basis, but if that were so.... then that would be so.  It wouldn't certify the truth of a superstitious morality.  You're only telling us that if your superstitions turned out to be false, which they certainly are, then you couldn't be compelled to decency.  Where others see a world of right and wrong, you see only a free-for-all.

Generally, I doubt that this is true of anyone.  I'm inclined to believe that you and others who say similar things are mistaken about yourselves in this regard.....bluntly, I see you pointing to moral facts as though they established the supernatural.  This suggests that you at least see the moral dimensions of mere reality.  

OFC, I can only object with so much force, if you and they actually are some sort of sociopath...and you would endlessly reassert the above..well, then so be it?  I hope you remain superstitious?

I said a reality that posses moral aims and purposes, I didn't say superstitious, or supernatural, or whatever those terms might mean to you.

To say what if reality didn't posses moral aims and purposes, is a big if. It's sort like saying how would our behavior change if you found out your living in the something akin to the Truman Show, or that if you found out you're a brain in vat, or that you're a player in a video game, and everyone else is just a computer simulation, and not real beings, etc...

Even though this is would be quite unimaginable, if it actually were true it would probably have a dramatic impact on our behavior, and our relationship to others. 

Lucky for all us, we all seem to operate as if reality does possess moral aims and purposes, even if some of us refuse to acknowledge this because it's difficult to reconcile with other components of your worldview, and such can't particularly express it, without placing their own self-identifies in doubt. But internally, subconscious perhaps they operate with underlying belief such a reality, and would circle or gravitate towards those able to confirm these commitments, like MLK. 


A person who completely operated in denial of such a moral reality, would be akin to a sociopath, people we all would be weary about.

[The Grand Nudger]

I said a reality that posses moral aims and purposes, I didn't say superstitious, or supernatural, or whatever those terms might mean to you.

That which we call a rose.  You've explained what you mean by this enough on the boards that any wheedling on the subject is pointless.

To say what if reality didn't posses moral aims and purposes, is a big if. It's sort like saying how would our behavior change if you found out your living in the something akin to the Truman Show, or that if you found out you're a brain in vat, or that you're a player in a video game, and everyone else is just a computer simulation, and not real beings, etc...

As we've discussed in another thread and now this one, it's only a consequential what-if to the superstitious (and probably not even then).  If I were living in the truman show.,..then I would be living in the truman show (though why I would be living in the truman show if your superstitions were as false as they certainly are is a mystery). 

Nothing about living in the truman show gives me moral license to skullfuck the extras, for example.

Even though this is would be quite unimaginable, if it actually were true it would probably have a dramatic impact on our behavior, and our relationship to others. 

Yeah..you know..... or not at all.  50/50 

People don't seem to turn into raving sociopaths when they lose their faith.  The boards are full of such people.  I doubt that any of them have bodies under their floorboards.

Not even Valk.  She keeps them in the shed.  

OTOH, I'm sure that plenty of folks could express similar experiences, though it seems like the change might go in the opposite direction. When people lose their faiths, they often lose those bigotries common to their faith and gain remorse for having ever believed it, or comported themselves in such a manner. It's unfortunate, but our superstitions make us say and do stupid and hateful things. Things that we don't even realize are stupid or hateful so long as we find ourselves under the umbrella of that superstition. Things that we can rationalize and excuse when we are surrounded by others in our superstitions who reinforce those precepts. Things we take to be conceptually righteous, regardless of their degeneracy.

Now, personally, I'd call that coincidental. For every person that stops believing in some stupid or hateful superstitious x there are many more that just stop believing in the stupid or the hateful and retain their superstitious beliefs. They find, in short, that those things weren't a requirement of reality -or- of their faith.

Lucky for all us, we all seem to operate as if reality does possess moral aims and purposes, even if some of us refuse to acknowledge this because it's difficult to reconcile with other components of your worldview, and such can't particularly express it, without placing their own self-identifies in doubt. But internally, subconscious perhaps they operate with underlying belief such a reality, and would circle or gravitate towards those able to confirm these commitments, like MLK. 

The idea that everyone operates as though your superstitions were true consciously or subconsciously is false on it's face.  

A person who completely operated in denial of such a moral reality, would be akin to a sociopath, people we all would be weary about.

Except..again, that they don't?  This is why I don't grant any credence to the notion of a superstitious requirement (for or against) to human behavior in holding a moral schema. It's just something that superstitious people say about themselves and others.

The notion that some religion specifically produces mlks in a way that another religion or non religion or irreligion doesn't is similarly misinformed. It's nothing more or less than attempting to steal the credibility and work of real people for the realm of fairy tale creatures on account of credibility and work from those fairy tale creatures being so sorely lacking. If any portion of your or anyone else's superstitions were true then that case could be made on it's own merits rather than by shaking the bones of MLK..which does nothing whatsoever to advance that notion.

[unfogged]

Atheists can have conviction in something greater than themselves -- reality; this is far more inspiring and profound than anything offered by a god

And their version of reality lacks any moral aims and purposes, doesn’t convince a man to take the hand off of his brother neck, or laddle benediction on the heads of strangers rather than curses.

All their version of reality tells us is all is permissible.

No, it doesn't say "all is permissible". It doesn't say anything at all. The universe is, as far as we have determined, not sentient. Morality is something we need to devise in order to make our brief existence as good as it can possibly be because we are the ones that feel.

What you are saying, in essence, is that you are unable to find any reason to be a decent human being without having some authority figure hold a carrot and stick over your head. That says far more about you than it does about atheists.

[Angrboda]

Atheists can have conviction in something greater than themselves -- reality; this is far more inspiring and profound than anything offered by a god

And their version of reality lacks any moral aims and purposes, doesn’t convince a man to take the hand off of his brother neck, or laddle benediction on the heads of strangers rather than curses.

And that other message has been a rousing success so far! lol.

[Acrobat]

No, it doesn't say "all is permissible". It doesn't say anything at all.

Exactly, in a reality that says nothing at all, all is permissible.

What you are saying, in essence, is that you are unable to find any reason to be a decent human being without having some authority figure hold a carrot and stick over your head.

Did I say anything about an authority figure holding a carrot and stick over our head? I said a reality that posses moral purpose and aims.

It’s existence is not dependent on my beliefs, nor are it’s implications. The law of gravity, doesn’t require my beliefs to be applicable to me.

In fact any moral claim or statement from an atheists or anyone else, to not be reducible to the decorative frills of personal opinion, like your taste in food or movies, requires the existence of such a reality to make your moral pronouncement mean anything more than gibberish.

Atheists might struggle with a ton of cognitive dissonance trying to deny this but the very existence of dissonance, just confirms the implications of such a reality, even among those who think they don’t believe in it.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, it doesn't say "all is permissible".  It doesn't say anything at all.  

Exactly, in a reality that says nothing at all, all is permissible.

Why do you believe this? You have no idea what atheists think or why...so, perhaps you should focus on what you believe and why, instead?

If you found yourself standing in a room with a mute....would you take that as an indication that "all is permissible"?

[Acrobat]

If I were living in the truman show.,..then I would be living in the truman show (though why I would be living in the truman show if your superstitions were as false as they certainly are is a mystery). 

IF you found out you were living in the equivalent of the Truman show, it would result in a dramatic change in your behavior. You're relationship with wife is not going be the same after you find out she was a paid actor.

Nothing about living in the truman show gives me moral license to skullfuck the extras, for example.  

Perhaps not the Truman show, but if I found out you were a video game simulation, you might, like one would do so in Grand Theft Auto.

Lucky for us, only crazy people would believe we're in the Truman show, or it's all just a video game. You probably would't want such people to watch your kids.

People don't seem to turn into raving sociopaths when they lose their faith.  The boards are full of such people.  I doubt that any of them have bodies under their floorboards.

Not even Valk.  She keeps them in the shed.  

It doesn't seem me that people actually lose their faith. Theism casts such a long shadow, that hardly anyone seems able to truly disbelieve it, even those who claim to be atheist. They occupy a view of life, that's confused, contradictory, and incoherent.

The idea that everyone operates as though your superstitions were true consciously or subconsciously is false on it's face.  

Change it to what I actually said, and perhaps this might be a little more evidence.

Everyone operates as if reality possess moral aims and purpose, and you're a clear example of this.

You believe there are moral facts. That the holocaust is bad, is a moral, and objective fact.

The fact that you struggle with cognitive dissonance, that leaves you unable to see how the existence of such facts, indicate reality possess morals aims and purposes, is more your problem than mine. You live and operate if such purpose exists, not in negations of it. You're the man who says "it's raining outside, but I don't believe it."

---

Exactly, in a reality that says nothing at all, all is permissible.

Why do you believe this?  You have no idea what atheists think or why...so, perhaps you should focus on what you believe and why, instead?

If you found yourself standing in a room with a mute....would you take that as an indication that "all is permissible"?

According to a rock it is. A rock doesn't tell me to use it to pummel your head, or build a house with it. It has nothing to say one way or the other, it takes the same stance in all instances, repeats the same refrain, all is permissible.

[The Grand Nudger]

If I were living in the truman show.,..then I would be living in the truman show (though why I would be living in the truman show if your superstitions were as false as they certainly are is a mystery). 

IF you found out you were living in the equivalent of the Truman show, it would result in a dramatic change in your behavior. You're relationship with wife is not going be the same after you find out she was a paid actor.

-and yet no change whatsoever in my moral precepts.  

Nothing about living in the truman show gives me moral license to skullfuck the extras, for example.  

Perhaps not the Truman show, but if I found out you were a video game simulation, you might, like one would do so in Grand Theft Auto.

Lucky for us, only crazy people would believe we're in the Truman show, or it's all just a video game. You probably would't want such people to watch your kids.

I -already- do horrible shit in video games that I wouldn't do irl, lol.  That's the great fun of a video game.  Razing villages to the ground, dropping nukes on the enemy..etc.

People don't seem to turn into raving sociopaths when they lose their faith.  The boards are full of such people.  I doubt that any of them have bodies under their floorboards.

Not even Valk.  She keeps them in the shed.  

It doesn't seem me that people actually lose their faith. Theism casts such a long shadow, that hardly anyone seems able to truly disbelieve it, even those who claim to be atheist. They occupy a view of life, that's confused, contradictory, and incoherent.

Perhaps, again, you should contain yourself to what you believe..and why, rather than making some comment based on your historically poor ability to comprehend the mind of an atheist?

The idea that everyone operates as though your superstitions were true consciously or subconsciously is false on it's face.  

Change it to what I actually said, and perhaps this might be a little more evidence.

Everyone operates as if reality possess moral aims and purpose, and you're a clear example of this.

You believe there are moral facts. That the holocaust is bad, is a moral, and objective fact.

The fact that you struggle with cognitive dissonance, that leaves you unable to see how the existence of such facts, indicate reality possess morals aims and purposes, is more your problem than mine. You live and operate if such purpose exists, not in negations of it. You're the man who says "it's raining outside, but I don't believe it."

Case in point, I'm not struggling with any cognitive dissonance on this issue, Acro.  That;s just something that you, as a superstitious person, are saying. It tells us only that you think that you would feel some sort of cognitive dissonance.

Why do you believe this?  You have no idea what atheists think or why...so, perhaps you should focus on what you believe and why, instead?

If you found yourself standing in a room with a mute....would you take that as an indication that "all is permissible"?

According to a rock it is. A rock doesn't tell me to use it to pummel your head, or build a house with it. It has nothing to say one way or the other, it takes the same stance in all instances, repeats the same refrain, all is permissible.

Rocks don't say anything...so, again, the rock isn't telling you anything, let alone that all is permissible.  

Is this an affirmation that you would also assume that all was permissible with the mute on account of them telling you nothing? Is the only difference between yourself and a rapist, for example..someone or something else's ability to say no?

The most that you can competently claim, Acro..is that if it weren't for your religion, then you would not know how to establish right from wrong, and that all things would seem to be permissible to you.  This observations only speaks to you, not anyone else, or how anyone else would perceive the world or the nature of moral questions. People already perceive the world and the nature of moral questions differently than you do, so it should come as no surprise to find that others would not see the world or the nature of moral questions as you do in that event. You losing whatever operative superstition you hold will not make you agree with them, or them agree with you by default.

Following?